home
RSS
April 30th, 2012
12:24 PM ET

Columnist Dan Savage stands by comments on 'bulls**t in the Bible'

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - Columnist and gay-rights advocate Dan Savage is standing by his comment that “we can learn to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about gay people” at a recent conference for high school students, a line that prompted some to walk out and spurred intense online debate.

In a blog post on Sunday, Savage wrote that his remark at a conference for the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association was "being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue.”

“I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised," Savage wrote. "I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against — and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying 'motivated by faith') — because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong.”

Some Christian students walked out of the Seattle speech, prompting another controversial line from Savage: “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya**ed people react when you push back.”

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Savage apologized for that specific remark in Sunday’s blog post, writing that his word choice “was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong.”

One of the teachers attending the speech with his students told CNN’s Carol Costello on Monday that he was taken aback by the speech and that he supported the decision of some of his students to walk out of it.

“It took a real dark, hostile turn, certainly, as I saw it,” said Rick Tuttle, a teacher at Sutter Union High School in Southern California. “It became very hostile toward Christianity, to the point that many students did walk out, including some of my students.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“They felt that they were attacked … a very pointed, direct attack on one particular group of students. It’s amazing that we go to an anti-bullying speech and one group of students is picked on in particular, with harsh, profane language.”

Watch CNN Newsroom weekdays 9am to 3pm ET and weekends. For the latest from the CNN Newsroom click here.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bible • Charity • Christianity • Homosexuality • Israel • Schools • TV-CNN Newsroom

soundoff (4,113 Responses)
  1. johndeveraux

    Danita can stick it where the sun don't shine,,, never mind, it would probably like that too much.

    May 1, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • momoya

      why would he want to stick it in your skull?!?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  2. realist

    momoya:

    "You didn't answer the question at all.. Try again.. We're looking for a valid, verifiable mechanism provided by the bible within the bible that you can apply to any verse to determine if it is more literal or more figurative.."

    Easy – it's called Biblical Hermeneutics. It's well known and has been used for centuries to determine exactly what you ask. However, it is funny though. Most people don't insist on this kind of a "mechanism" for any other work of antiquity. They'll accept darn near any silly thing that comes along in any other book and not insist on this "mechanism". Even so, it's there. Enjoy!

    May 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • momoya

      That mechanism does not fulfill the requirements I listed.. We're looking for a mechanism that, if employed BEFORE the discovery of the cosmos, would have indicated Genesis 1 & 2 were pure allegory.. It's easy for christians to claim it now, after scientific discoveries..

      Let's pick two obscure verses:

      1. the one that describes sprinkling disease infested bird blood to cure leprosy
      2. the one that describes the earth as a "circle" not sphere

      The christians claim that verse 1 isn't practical medicine (for some spiritual/not medical purpose).
      The christians claim that verse 2 is to be taken literally.

      What mechanism will get the right answer on both of these verses without "cheating" according to current medical knowledge or scientific fact?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Nemoque

      There are hermeneutical principles of interpretation that are well established. The Bible consists of many forms of literary genre and each one has to be interpreted according to its genre, just as you do everyday of your life. Genesis 1 & 2 have been interpreted as an allegory from the beginning by nearly all theologians. It is only relatively recently that some Christian groups have taken it literally. Secondly, the bible has descriptive, prescriptive, and preformative language. You have to make those distinction. Listen, I could go on and on, but I can't produce years of study in this little space.

      May 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • atheist fred

      @ Nemoque

      If G1 & 2 are allegory, what about the rest of it?

      May 1, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • momoya

      Nemoque, the sheer number of various christian sects and cults and differing apologetics and study commentaries and the like prove that christians do not have a verifiable method of hermeneutics.. Christians, both educated and ignorant, are on both sides of any issue.. Hermeneutics does not provide a reliable method of interpretation; it does not guarantee that two scholars will view the same verse similarly;thus, it fails.

      May 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"it does not guarantee that two scholars will view the same verse similarly;thus, it fails.:

      Is this why, since they can not get all environmentalist to agree on what is the true cause of Global Warming many consider it to be false?

      Interesting.

      May 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • momoya

      @Mark

      Do you really not realize how absolutely stupid that was?? LOL!!
      And scientists that warn about global warming aren't claiming to be interpreting the word of god, moron.. They aren't studying a book that claims to have spiritual truths.. They aren't claiming that there's a process by which you can understand a book of spiritual truths.. They're noticing an effect and trying to test various theories as to why the evidence points the way it does..

      May 1, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Momo, it is the same in that each are human and folks tend to put in their personal views into their findings. If you are Rev Terry Jones and you hate Gays and Lesbians then you take that with you into your interpretation of the scriptures. If you are a Prius driving environmentalist then you might look at the global warming and stick to believing that it is cars that are causing Global Warming. Another might be a vegan and declare that no, it is not cars it is all of the animals that we are raising for consumption. It is just that simple in that we all are just simple humans.

      May 1, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • momoya

      Mark, perhaps you're too stupid to see the difference between looking for the causes of global warming and looking for a reliable mechanism to tell which verses are literal and which aren't..

      In the case of global warming, you couldn't be more wrong.. The scientist's "feelings" don't matter one bit; what matters is the data.. Science doesn't let you pick and choose what of it you accept and what you don't-you have to accept all of it because it all "works" as science has predicted it will..

      The hermeneutical method of approaching scripture can't give reliable results like a science experiment on an aspect of global warming would.. An experiment gives results and you look to see what those results might mean and you do more tests.. We can't do that with the words of the bible.. We can't find a mechanism laid out in the bible that we can "test" against scriptures that we know are allegorical or literal (because of science, NOT bible study).. We can't take that accurately testing mechanism and then apply it to scripture–BECAUSE NOBODY HAS ONE!!

      You can't be sooo amazingly stupid as to claim that scriptural interpretation is carried out the same way as data interpretation in science?!?!!? You're just not that bat-sh!t stupid..

      May 2, 2012 at 10:48 am |
  3. 12 years of Catholic School

    Only morons take the bible literally. The bible was written by man and is therefore fallible.

    May 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Lewis Keseberg

      You're not still eating the jesus-meat, are you?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Nonimus

      ... won't argue with that, but it does raise the question of what then is infallibly "the Truth."

      May 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • realist

      Sorry to see your Catholic upbringing has resulted in such hostility to God and his word.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • just sayin

      Praying is evidence of psychosis...

      May 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Nemoque

      There is a principle in debate that "he who asserts must prove." If you can prove what you say is true, your words might be persuasive.

      May 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
  4. roya

    The bully campaign from the beginning was a scam by the big government statist supporters to bully Americans into accepting more centralized big government diktats about how and what and where we can live our lives. It is meant to rule and control and allow no alternative or recourse. It is meant to make us all one; no, not one as in unity and harmony, but one as in no choice or recourse but one w/ the New Order of the centralized government. It is meant to make all of us the same as the leftards we see today who follow the orders of their "betters" like good little robots.

    The left has learned to use the tactics of the Taliban to browbeat the people into obedience. The left has become a plague, a blight, an evil, destructive, beast that we must stop to save this country and protect this country's legacy of rights and freedoms as citizens..

    May 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • Greyman

      Because it's only bullying and browbeating when you encourage people stand up to ACTUAL bullying and browbeating.

      Go blow your conspiracy theorist fumes up someone else's @$$.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Adam

      Are you really that attached to inflicting mental/physical abuse on other human beings? Follow up question: Just how bad of a person ARE you? Thank you.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      somebody has been watching too much

      May 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • Mike R

      Amen to your comments. Add to those, that any time you bully people at your anti-bullying campaign you lose all credibility. If the goal is to seek mutual understanding so that we see each other as people rather than targets, you cant call peoples faith or its believers deragatory names.

      Guys a bully.

      May 1, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • momoya

      Let's. think about what Sa.v.age actually said: Was it "bullying?"

      1. Christians don't follow the bible verses that promote sla.very or k.i.lling your children if they disobey etc
      2. Because christians don't follow the bible on those verses, perhaps they should not follow the g.a.y bashing ones a few lines down.
      3. He described their BEHAVIOR and later apologized for that remark.

      What was so wrong with those three things?

      May 1, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  5. Bob

    FriedPotatoes, re "Bob. We dont do animal sacrifice...but my guess is you already know that.":

    Look, my point was that your god according to your bible dictates that you do it. You may not do animal sacrifice, but if you don't that would make you a sinner, and disobedient. And per my earlier comment, don't try the "OT no longer applies" nonsense, because that would put you in even deeper trouble.

    Got it yet? Are you going to deny that those instructions are in there?

    May 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Just another DBA

      Wow! You might want to think twice before speaking about something that you have absolutely no understanding of.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • ReadAndThink

      The fact God offered regulations to govern the way people cared for the slaves, or their wives, or neighbors does not imply that He approved of the things He was regulating. We have millions of laws on the books in the USA which regulate and govern behavior that we as a nation do not agree with or endorse. The EPA and FCC regulate every day. It is very simplistic to argue that regulation is equal to support. He gave the Books of the Law and the prophets (OT) to regulate what people were already doing. He offers order amidst the chaos. God provided the OT (like the 10 commandments) to reveal our sin before Him. The standard in the OT is perfection, which is impossible. The OT/laws are given to point out that no one could ever satisfy this law of their own; as this implies somehow "earning" the favor of God. He sent his Son to provide the way to restore the relationship between God and man through His action (not ours). This is the gift of God (grace) which you are free to either accept or reject. If you are not afraid of reading the Bible (if it is just a book, right) then I suggest Hebrews 10:1-39 It explains the role of Christ in terms of the OT and Ephesians 2:1-22.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • a person of the Name

      What I was thinking as well...

      May 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • momoya

      Umm.. God could have just made it a commandment: Thou shalt own no other humans.. It would have been pretty simple, although there's commandments to not kill and then god tells them to kill entire towns including young babies and livestock, so it's not like they couldn't have still owned sla.ves anyway.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • A Frayed Knot

      momoya
      "Umm.. God could have just made it a commandment: Thou shalt own no other humans."

      Yes... instead we get the stellar, "Make no graven images"!
      (and the other top 3 which are narcissistic tripe)

      May 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      @Read&Think – your name is ironic...

      LET's Religiousity Law #4 – If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is an ancient cultural anomaly; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernible by humans; or is just plain magic.

      May 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @ReadAndThink,
      "...does not imply that He approved of the things He was regulating. "
      Seriously? He's God. If He doesn't like something He says so, right?
      No Gods before me.
      No killing (or murdering, if you prefer)
      No stealing
      No lying (under oath, I guess?)
      etc.

      Look regulation, almost by definition, would be a statement of this is the proper way to do {fill in the activity}. In what other activity did God, supposedly say, 'You aren't supposed to do this, but if you do, at least do it this way.'?

      May 1, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Readandthink wrote, " The fact God offered regulations to govern the way people cared for the slaves, or their wives, or neighbors does not imply that He approved of the things He was regulating."

      So your god isn't omnipotent and omniscient? He wasn't (and still isn't) able to just say "thou shalt not own another human being"?

      And why is it you choose to worship this putz?

      May 1, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  6. zahbudda

    This is what dan and his "Speedo" clad "Husband object to: THE TRUTH

    Romans 1 21 thru 31: which tells it like it is today and points out the character of Michael, Momaya, etc... most succinctly:

    read it and weep... ye are perishing... you are like chaff that will be blown away.... like your Father... who has been defeated! Thank you Lord LOL

    Romans 1:21-32

    21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

    24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

    This passage is a perfect description of the hate filled Demons that Bash Christians....reap what you sow!

    May 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Greyman

      Wah wah wah, more drivel from the book that says snakes and burning bushes talk and a global flood actually occurred. Easily dismissed with a wave of my hand, just like any other 'argument' offered by sheep that can only quote from a book, incapable of critical thinking.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Bob

      Well, since you want to reference the Christian book of nasty, AKA the bible, note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes your sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations, and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      LET's Religiousity Law #3 – If you habitually spout off verses from your "holy" book to make whatever inane point you're trying to make, and not once does it occur to you to question whether your book is accurate in the first place, then you are definitely mentally retarded.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • chris

      AMEN

      May 1, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  7. Zag

    @facepalm...

    I'm simply saying that those having been around others who are dying (working in a hospital) I have seen even the most staunch atheists turn to a higher power when they realize the end is at the door. They look into the eyes of those they love and the knowledge that they will "go on living in my memory" isn't enough any more. The truly deluded ones are those who have to spend their whole lives lying to themselves that they are ok with slipping in to non-existence. Many in the military have the seem experiences when in seemingly hopeless situations. They see those who profess to have no beliefs turn to a higher power in their last moments. It is simple human nature to believe in something greater than ourselves, and it is certainly nice to have that thing be kinder than random chance.

    You're right, I am comforted by thoughts of a life after this one. Of a place that is better than this one. A place where children don't starve to death because of the unfortunate situations they are born into. If that makes me weak minded, then I confess. It brings me great joy, and inspires me to serve others and strive to be a better person. I hope that your own beliefs (funny huh, that atheism is based on beliefs since science can't prove truth it can only prove something wrong which it hasn't done with the existence or non-existence of God) bring you happiness as well (I really do mean that, i'm not being sarcastic). To me one of the greatest principles of truth is that each person is free to choose his or her own beliefs.

    May 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • momoya

      If your afterlife maintains that the same god providing you neverending joy also provides those who don't a.ssume like you neverending torment, than it seems pretty selfish and masochistic for you to think that way.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      I don't have beliefs. I lack beliefs. I'm not afraid to say "I don't know" I'm not sure why believers have a hard time understanding this.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • This is

      T
      O
      T
      A
      L

      B
      U
      L
      L
      S
      H
      I
      T

      May 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
  8. Greyman

    Yesterday, I was feebly insulted here for stating 'One pair of hands at work accomplishes more than a million clasped in prayer', accused of copy-and-pasting everything. I find that laughable, coming from peeps that blindly defend a book about talking snakes and burning bushes, slathering people's faces with sacrificed bird blood, and a global flood that is a geological and physical impossibility. Always quoting from a book of fairy tales as if everyone is to automatically concede it has any authority. And if anyone dares criticize or dismiss it (as I ALWAYS do), suddenly they're labeled as seeking to dwell in darkness and serve evil. Dark and evil, those that dismiss the perpetually jealous, spiteful, genocidal Abrahamic god...whose existence no one ever provides evidence for.

    And I stand by my original statement, and dismiss any notion that prayer has power with a contemptuous handwave. Oh yeah, someone will inevitably bring up how so-and-so was cured of a disease because someone was praying. Big deal. Because doctors, nurses, lab techs and surgeons played NO ROLE in the recovery, right? And never mind all those countless others who were prayed for and died...all that matter is the person you know lived, so prayer must work, right?

    May 1, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Don't worry, no one owns exclusivity to being insulted here on the Belief Blog. Its almost a right of passage on which ever side you stand on a subject.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • beepa11

      Greyman... I hope to see you in Heaven. I don't know if I will make it there, but I'll pray for you. 🙂

      May 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Greyman

      I'll do the thinking for you, beepa11. At least I'll accomplish something in your stead.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
  9. Rodney Caston

    The bible's support of slavery exposes it as being fallible, if it can not get right one of the simplest and most basic questions relating to morality (slavery), why would we expect it to get anything else right?

    May 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      If you wish to hold on to those Scriptures and discount the entire what is wrong with another holding on to the many peace and love Scriptures to validate the Bible to themselves?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • momoya

      Yep, Rodney

      However, I will gladly discuss the issue with any christian who can show me a mechanism that can be verified to divide the OT commandments into two lists: List 1 would be all the commandments that no longer apply because of that mechanism, and List2 would be all the commandments that still apply because of that mechanism..

      I'm not looking for "you have to read with 'the spirit'" or such garbage.. Christians, by what BIBLICAL MECHANISM can you determine which OT scriptures are for us today and which are not.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      LET's Religiousity Law #4 – If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is an ancient cultural anomaly; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernible by humans; or is just plain magic.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • momoya

      @Lucifer

      LOL! Which atheist among us doubts that if the cosmological view lined up with Genesis 1 the christians would all be saying that Genesis 1 is correct but Genesis 2 is allegorical?? Or vice versa?

      What is the mechanism by which christians decide one verse is "literal" and another "allegorical?": Leaning on their own understanding..

      May 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • fred

      Momoya
      Allegorical or literal both would line and point to the same truth. That is how we know. You see momoya no matter how you try and twist the truth the truth remains and the liar is exposed.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • momoya

      @fred

      You didn't answer the question at all.. Try again.. We're looking for a valid, verifiable mechanism provided by the bible within the bible that you can apply to any verse to determine if it is more literal or more figurative.. You christians CLAIM that certain verses are literal and certain are figurative (coincidentally, after enough cosmological knowledge came to light, certain bible passages moved from the "literal" column to the "metaphorical" column)..

      Is there such a mechanism? How do christians know which verses are which if there isn't? 🙂

      Allegorical or literal both would line and point to the same truth. That is how we know. You see momoya no matter how you try and twist the truth the truth remains and the liar is exposed.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      @fred – that's it? "Allegorical or literal both would line and point to the same truth. That is how we know." THAT's all you can bring to the fight? The least you could have done is typed a series of biblical nonsense words in defense... You're such a pogue.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • fred

      Mommoya and Twin
      You missed the point where the truth of the Bible, regardless if literal or allegorical interpretation, exposes the liar. Satan is the father of lies (twin there is the quote you were waiting for) and your heart of darkness reflects that connection when you twist the Bible. Christians say it in a positive way in that the Holy Spirit leads us in all truth. Well the reverse is that evil leads you in deception. Certainly there are some verses that no one really knows what they mean but, the big main foundations are clear.
      If your concern is the Genesis 1 vs 2 start with the fact that the God of Genesis 1 in Hebrew is God Almighty creator who said let it be and it was whereas in Hebrew God of Genesis 2 is a personal God making man and woman in his image describing the setting for Adam and Eve.
      The evil revealed is that both of you missed out on why we exist and ran right to trashing the Bible and trashing the believer.

      May 1, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • momoya

      @fred

      I disagree with each and every statement of that post.. It's ridiculous and you should know it.. Spouting nonsense is not a reply; it's an abortion.. Ask your god to help you come up with something intelligent to say about it.

      May 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
  10. s.michael Evans

    To momoya, you obviously have no understanding of the christian bible. No where does the bible condone slavery. the bible requires the christian to love everyone, not hate . You are not required to support the sins that people commit. He did not just describe behavior, his remarks were filled with hate and vitriol.

    May 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Sunday school refresher

      "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

      May 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Sunday school refresher

      If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

      May 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Sunday school refresher

      When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

      May 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Sunday school refresher

      Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

      May 1, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Read it again...this time using your brain...if that's possible.
      The tired excuse of saying "indentured servitude isn't slavery" line doesn't hold water. That particular distinction only applied to Jews...if you were a heathen or pagan your goose was cooked.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • momoya

      @s michael

      Oh, you keep on claiming the same stupid sh!t over and over, but you just can't say why you feel that way.. The bible supports slavery the entire way through, or haven't you read the thing?. Again, WHY do you feel his comments were "hate filled" and "vitriolic?". Try the questions again:

      . Christians don't follow the bible verses that promote sla.very or k.i.lling your children if they disobey etc
      2. Because christians don't follow the bible on those verses, perhaps they should not follow the g.a.y bashing ones a few lines down.
      3. He described their BEHAVIOR and later apologized for that remark.

      What was so wrong with those three things?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Momo, as soon as he continued' to bully and attack the children who were quietly leaving he became a bully himself.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • momoya

      Which of his acts were "bullying," Mark?...

      1. Explaining what was in their own bible that they didn't follow now?
      2. Asking that they not follow some verses because they don't follow others right next to them?
      3. Calling their BEHAVIOR "pansyazz?"

      May 1, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Bob

      s.michael, you just got totally PWNED by SSR. The bible is loaded with instructions on slavery, and much worse stuff.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 1, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Momo, unless he was 100% sure that those that left were bullies of Gays and Lesbians then calling them pansyazz'd was being a bully.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • beepa11

      You are right, S.Michael. It is much "easier" being a non believer than being a Christian. The Ten Commandments are not the ten suggestions.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      There aren't just ten commandments. There are over 600 in the OT alone. Do you follow all of them, or do you consider some of them to be 'suggestions'.

      I hope you haven't worn any poly-cotton blends lately...

      May 1, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • momoya

      @Mark

      You just described generalization, not bullying.. Try again?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      ...which is often the basis of bullying Momo.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • momoya

      Yes, it can be the basis of bullying, which means it isn't all by itself. duh.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      When he generalized and then resorted to name calling, Momo... he achieved Bullying.

      Same as you and name calling but I am a adult. This guy name called on children, which is very much bullying because they are less likely to charge the stage and attack him.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • momoya

      Oh, ok, so your tactic here is just to lie and keep lying.. Got it.. It's what you always do.. Thanks for proving it yet again.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Are all who point out your flaws "lying" Momo? I notice that is the flag you throw when cornered. It was a good discussion. I pointed out why I felt you were wrong and in the end you tried to win by being a name calling bully yourself.

      No wonder you defend this guy, even when he himself said he was wrong. When will the day that you achieve such.

      Name calling does not win a argument, espeically when the person does not reciprocate the name calling.

      May 1, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • momoya

      No, name calling doesn't win an argument, and describing behavior isn't "bullying.". If the name calling was sustained for a length of time, and not one misplaced remark in the spirit of free speech on a topic, then it might be bullying.. In this case it CLEARLY was not.. You are lying.

      May 1, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"If the name calling was sustained for a length of time, and not one misplaced remark in the spirit of free speech on a topic, then it might be bullying.."

      So for a sustained length of time is now your criteria to classify when bullying officially begins? Momo, even you must realize that is a major flaw. That is like Ike Turner saying that he just "shoved" Tina Turner once so it was not battery. I posted a section from the United States Government anti bullying site, which showed what they felt bullying is.

      Momo, how come your definition of Bullying does not match what the Obama administration declares as bullying, since they do not give a time frame?

      Again, not lying....just pointing out the flaw in your sustained argument now. 🙂

      May 1, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
  11. GDH

    Think of this article , other world news, and the state of human beings as you read these words:( Know this that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters , PROUD , blasphemers, Disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without Natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of thoses that are good. Traitors, heady, highmined, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God ; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 timothy 3:1-5.) He that is without sin among you , let him cast the first stone. John 8:7. Just some words from that Book that is so irrelevant to todays world.

    May 1, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • momoya

      Quite irrelevant as it's ancient, stupid myth.. The people who wrote that myth would be shocked that you believe it today with all the knowledge we now have.. but...

      Let's. think about what Sa.v.age actually said:

      1. Christians don't follow the bible verses that promote sla.very or k.i.lling your children if they disobey etc
      2. Because christians don't follow the bible on those verses, perhaps they should not follow the g.a.y bashing ones a few lines down.
      3. He described their BEHAVIOR and later apologized for that remark.

      What was so wrong with those three things?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Momo, as soon as he conti'nued to bully and attack the children who were quietly leaving, calling them pansies, he became a bully himself.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • momoya

      @Mark

      He didn't bully, you stupid git.. If you could show that he was bullying, you'd have done so, but you can't.. Take your retarded accusations somewhere where they don't deal in logical arguemnts.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • momoya

      Which of his acts were "bullying," Mark?..

      1. Explaining what was in their own bible that they didn't follow now?
      2. Asking that they not follow some verses because they don't follow others right next to them?
      3. Calling their BEHAVIOR "pansyazz?"

      May 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>”He didn't bully, you stupid git”

      “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya**ed people react when you push back.”

      Unless he knew, with 100% certainty that those who walked out had bullied Gays or Lesbians, then he was being a bully.

      Think about... would bullies of Gays and Lesbains attend a lecture by a bullied Gay who wants to stop bullying. That's like a Gay or Lesbian Christian going to Westburo Baptist. They would not.. and if they walked out Rev Terry Jones would attack them as Dan did while they were walking out.

      Bullies and ones without tolerance all act in the same manner in the end.

      Done.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Mark

      It's not being a bully to make a bad observation: “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya**ed people react when you push back.”

      It's not being a bully to generalize, it's being fallacious: Unless he knew, with 100% certainty that those who walked out had bullied Gays or Lesbians, then he was being a bully.

      You're even more stupid than I remember.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"It's not being a bully to generalize"

      I will remember that when folks ask me how many children I have, even ones that are by different mothers.

      Generalzing is a major form of bullying and worst stereotyping. The basis of most hate groups are that they generalize people.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • momoya

      Sometimes bullying INCLUDES generalizations, but generalizing is not bullying.. Grow a brain cell or two.

      People complain about generalization because they are generalization, not because it is "bullying.". Try growing a few more.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Nonimus

      While I think one could argue that, technically, Sav.age didn't directly bully anyone specifically, that isn't the strongest position to take. And, he did apologize, so there is some admission of guilt.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
  12. Michael

    It's no surprise that religious fundamentalist would reach for the victim card. It's a tried and true way to avoid addressing the meat of Dan's statements and continue on a mission of hate and bigotry. But perpetrators always see themselves as victims. That is how they justify being perpetrators. Dan is just following the example of the man the modern day Pharisees claim they follow. A man that was also nailed to a cross for pointing out religious hypocrisy. Like that man, they won't be able to keep Dan on the cross.

    May 1, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      ...it is also not surprising that a guy speaking up against bullying of children became a bully of children himself.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • sjohnson

      I guess you missed the point of the article. It is an anti-bullying message and he bullied a particular group within the audience. When they got upset and left, he called them pansies. That is the epitome of a bully. You can't see passed your ideology to see that your opinion might not be correct – at least not to others. In your mind, you will always be right, and you'll always have that. Good for you.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • What?

      What you say is illogical. We cannot control the actions of others. We can only control our reactions to others. To be at an anti-bullying rally and to have anyone in attendance be bullied by the guest speaker who is supposed to be an advocate against bullying is pretty lame. Since when does diversity mean 'only people who think like me'? The civil discourse in this country has gotten totally out of hand by all parties of all beliefs. Rodney King truly said it best – "Can't we all just get along?"

      May 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Greyman

      @sjohnson

      Because it's only bullying when someone calls out or fights back against those doing the bullying in the first place. Typical reasoning of bullies and their apologists. Both tend to put on a bravado but are pathetically thin-skinned.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • momoya

      Which of his acts were "bullying," Mark?.

      1. Explaining what was in their own bible that they didn't follow now?
      2. Asking that they not follow some verses because they don't follow others right next to them?
      3. Calling their BEHAVIOR "pansyazz?"

      May 1, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Unless he knew, with 100% certainty that those who walked out had bullied Gays or Lesbians, then he was being a bully Momo. I would have walked out as well just as if it were reversed and one was attacking Gays and Lesbians during a sermon at a church.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • momoya

      Wrong. That aint bullyin.. Try again.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Momo, Yes with respect it is. He did not know every kid except that he knew that most of the kids there desired to work to stop bullying. So unless he was idiot, he should have know that if there were any Christians there these would not be the kind of Westburo Baptist Christians who do bully anyone let alone Gays and Lesbians.

      He generalized and then when they walked out he resorted to name calling. This is bullying, plain and simple.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • momoya

      @Mark

      FAIL.. No, he didn't call them names which you would know if you only read with more comprehension.. He described behavior; he didn't call names.. And, he later apologized for that much..

      Are you always this stupid in everything you do?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Yep, disagree and those who can not handle it .... resort to name calling.

      If he addressed it to the ones leaving and I did read the article including his appologies for the name calling. Even he realized that it was wrong.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • momoya

      Yes, Mark, he realized he was wrong, so he apologized.. Again, the fact that he felt he was wrong in describing their behavior as he did does not mean that he "bullied" them.. "Bully" has a definition, you know.. Maybe look it up?

      May 1, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>”Maybe look it up?”
      I did Momo. From the: “www.stopbullying.gov” website

      Verbal bullying is saying or writing mean things. Verbal bullying includes:

      Teasing
      Name-calling
      Inappropriate se'xual comments
      Taunting
      Threatening to cause harm

      By his own admission he did such. I think you failed on this day Momo.

      Thank my friend.

      L'Chaim

      May 1, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • momoya

      @Mark

      He didn't do any of those things as you've confirmed elsewhere in your posts.. Liar.

      May 1, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
  13. LWJR

    we all know where the gay-agenda is going...get rid of the bible and fundamental christians. gays fear only this one book and the people that read it. when you support their agenda, you support the NERO philosophy behind it.

    May 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • momoya

      Let's. think about what Sa.v.age actually said:

      1. Christians don't follow the bible verses that promote sla.very or k.i.lling your children if they disobey etc
      2. Because christians don't follow the bible on those verses, perhaps they should not follow the g.a.y bashing ones a few lines down.
      3. He described their BEHAVIOR and later apologized for that remark.

      What was so wrong with those three things?

      May 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • s.michael Evans

      I concur.

      May 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • momoya

      Thanks mike!!

      May 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

      Wouldn't you fear a book that advocated that you should be killed?

      May 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Momo, as soon as he conti'nued to bully and attack the children who were quietly leaving he became a bully himself.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • momoya

      Which of his acts were "bullying," Mark?

      1. Explaining what was in their own bible that they didn't follow now?
      2. Asking that they not follow some verses because they don't follow others right next to them?
      3. Calling their BEHAVIOR "pansyazz?"

      May 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Unless he knew, with 100% certainty that those who walked out had bullied Gays or Lesbians, then he was being a bully Momo. I would have walked out as well just as if it were reversed and one was attacking Gays and Lesbians during a sermon at a church.:)

      May 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • momoya

      Wrong.. You aren't describing bullying

      May 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Momo, Yes with respect it is. He did not know every kid except that he knew that most of the kids there desired to work to stop bullying. So unless he was idiot, he should have know that if there were any Christians there these would not be the kind of Westburo Baptist Christians who do bully anyone let alone Gays.

      He generalized and then when they walked out he resorted to name calling. This is bullying, plain and simple.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • momoya

      FAIL.. No, he didn't call them names which you would know if you only read with more comprehension.. He described behavior; he didn't call names.. And, he later apologized for that much..

      May 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  14. s.michael Evans

    It is interesting that the self proclaimed liberals are the most bigoted people, who claim knowledge, but lack both knowledge and wisdom. They also proclaim tolerance but
    never are.

    May 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • momoya

      Not all atheists and gays are liberal.. Why won't you respond to my questions?

      May 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      ...and not all Christians are Straight.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • This is

      more of same bs

      May 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
  15. realist

    So....don't bully gays, but gays are free to bully?

    Huh?

    May 1, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • momoya

      What bullying are you talking about?!?

      Let's think about what Sa.v.age actually said:

      1. Christians don't follow the bible verses that promote sla.very or k.i.lling your children if they disobey etc
      2. Because christians don't follow the bible on those verses, perhaps they should not follow the g.a.y bashing ones a few lines down.
      3. He described their BEHAVIOR and later apologized for that remark.

      What was so wrong with those three things?

      May 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • chipndale

      Realist typically means someone who deals well with reality. Aren't you just a bit far reaching?

      May 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Momo, as soon as he continued to bully and attack the children who were quietly leaving he became a bully himself.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • realist

      When you attack a belief system by calling it bulls^%! – you're a bully. It's simple really. I don't think re-framing his comments to give them a tame tone changes that. Besides, it's his ignorance of the Bible that's really at issue. People fail to see that many of those directives in the Bible applied to ancient times, not to today. Also, he takes much of them out of context. No, I think it's evident that this guy wanted to use the "bully pulpit" to do just that – bully. Since he had the stage and the lectern, he abused it, and actually made the case for the other side.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • momoya

      But he didn't say that the religion was "bullsh!t," did he?. What did he say was "bullsh!t?". Verses like god commanding parents to k.i.ll their children for disobedience.. Lie much?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • momoya

      @Mark

      Which of his acts were "bullying," Mark?..

      1. Explaining what was in their own bible that they didn't follow now?
      2. Asking that they not follow some verses because they don't follow others right next to them?
      3. Calling their BEHAVIOR "pansyazz?"

      May 1, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
  16. martog

    Posted in response to another article, but most of it is relevant here...
    I thought you might enjoy this.
    It is a response to a Rabbi posting an 'open letter' to all Atheists claiming that there can not really be any atheists.

    I’ll start this by saying that I definitely don’t presume to speak for all atheists, this is just my opinion on the article. To his first point, yes there really are true atheists. What he fails to understand is that atheism is a continuum – just like you can’t lump in all theists together, neither can you lump all atheists together.
    I know quite a few atheists, and none of them would make the claim that there is no god. If you make the claim that there is no god, you must know more about the universe than Einstein, who specifically did not make that claim. I do not claim that there is no god; there is no way that I could *know* if a creator exists or does not exist. However, what I do in fact claim is this: I don’t believe that any god or gods – as we are familiar with them in conventional religions – exist. I contend that we are all atheists; I just take it one god further. When you think about the reason why you most likely dismiss the existence of Zeus or Vishnu, you will understand why I dismiss the existence of Jehovah. There is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods. None. We can continue discussing this point (and I am totally willing to) but I expect that it is pointless, so for now, that is as much as I will say about that.
    He’s wrong about Hitler; he was German Catholic, and Lutheran teachings helped form his worldview (look it up if you don’t want to take my word for it). The “Hitler was an atheist” assertion is very common but historically inaccurate. That’s missing the larger point; these tyrants didn’t do evil things because they believed god didn’t exist – they did them because they were evil human beings. If you argue that had they known the grace of Christ they would not have done such things, look at all of the violence committed in the name of Christianity. That doesn’t work for me.
    He’s right about our axe to grind, but let’s be specific. We (I) don’t have a problem with religious folks. I don’t care what you believe. If believing in a god makes you a happier person, that’s your prerogative. Most atheists (that I know) would agree with that. What we have a problem with is when your beliefs spill over into secular decision-making. When people turn their brains off and vote based on their religious beliefs. This whole WASP-GOP hive mentality. Not believing that anthropogenic global warming is happening despite a mountain of empirical evidence to the contrary because of what was written in a book a very long time ago. Wanting a federal ban on gay marriage because your Christian sensibilities are offended when you think of it – even though once you take religion out of the equation you would have no good reason to oppose it as it literally does not affect you at all. Wanting a federal ban on abortion – same thing. None of us whom are pro choice are saying that abortion is a good thing, only that *I* don’t believe that I have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. And not wanting to pay for someone else’s healthcare. What would Jesus want you to do? I’m pretty sure he’d want you to sell your possessions and give your money to the poor.
    Religious folk often act as if the world would be filled with depravity if religion didn’t exist, but the most important moral truths are universal – that’s why they are found in the teachings of classical antiquity, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc. These truths would exist independent of religion, and I don’t believe for a second that religion has done the world any favors in that respect.
    With regards to the existence of a multiverse, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until we have proof, I’m not buying it. Neither are those who can actually talk about the concept and know what they are talking about; Brian Greene (a prominent physicist/author) made this exact point on Colbert the other evening.
    America has gone insane, and Biblical literalism, fundamentalist Christianity, call it whatever you like, IMO, has a lot to do with it. FOX News/the Right are just feeding the machine while making tons of money, and right-wingers are too stupid to see what’s happening.
    If you are a moderate, I have no issue with you; do whatever you like. It’s the fundies that make you guys look bad and get us upset. There’s plenty of reasons why I am a non-theist, but we aren’t mad and starting to be more vocal in our opinions because you choose to believe; we’re mad because 1) we’re tired of having God rammed down our throats and 2) we’re seeing the world go in an unhealthy, unsustainable direction with fundamentalist religion serving as an ever-increasing catalyst.[/quote]

    May 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • realist

      This is actually a pretty common response from the "new" atheist that seems to be springing up now in recent days. They've arisen because of a disconnect that was becoming popular that logically pinned atheists against the wall with their argument that there is no God, and demonstrated how silly that argument is. That logical disconnect is referenced in his first few lines in the response; namely that one can't logically claim there is no God, or no knowable gods or deities without necessarily claiming that that person knows everything there is to know about the universe and beyond. Once atheists realized this problem with their argument, they re-invented their traditional atheistic stance, namely that they reject the existence of a deity or deities, or that there are simply no deities at all claiming there is no evidence to show there is a God. Of course, this isn't really an argument for any recognized theological position. It's merely an opinion. One might say there is no evidence for God, and another might say there is. This doesn't change the fact that the atheist most definitely claims there is no God. This is what makes an atheist an atheist. If you claim you don't know, or cannot know there is a God due to lack of evidence, you are an agnostic.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • chipndale

      Not that you require my approval, but great comment!!

      May 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      You are technically correct.
      Just as a glass is not technically empty if it has .0001 oz of water in it, atheists must rationally leave open the minute possibility that a God does exist.
      However – when probability factors indicate a chance approaching 0, most folk take it as a given.
      Should s/ex ed teachers be required to say that abstinence isn't an effective birth control method becuase there are stories about virgins giving birth?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • fred

      Doc
      The probability of hominids on this planet by random events approaches 0

      May 1, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • realist

      Ah, yes Doc, but now you're making a statistical argument that I would contend is based on the evidence you either chose to accept, or to not accept. I contend there is quite a bit of solid empirical evidence (not just statistical number play) that not only suggests a god exists, but that the God of the Bible exists. I was only commenting on the fact that it's not reasonable to be an atheist. You seem to agree with your statement "atheists must rationally leave open the minute possibility that a God does exist."

      May 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Just as you must recognize that abstinence is NOT an effective form of birth control.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Bob

      Fred, the fact that the self-observers are on the planet takes probability out of the picture entirely. Better give that some more thought, and maybe do some reading on the anthropic principle.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 1, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Who is to say that Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, or Zaramama aren't true gods?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @fred
      "The probability of hominids on this planet by random events approaches 0"

      Where did you get this figure?

      May 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • fred

      Nonimus
      The time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance assuming there are as many sets of other genes and complex chemicals as there are atoms in the universe with 8 trillion tries per second in each set it would take 10 to the power of 147 years to obtain one stable gene.
      I understand the argument would move to non random chance combinations but, either way if you compute the conditions for life to exist in combination with non random chance that number still approaches o.

      May 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @fred,
      "I understand the argument would move to non random chance combinations ..."

      Good, then perhaps you understand that no one is saying that a hominid, nor even a "single stable gene," ever did, nor needed to, assemble itself by "random chance."

      May 1, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • fred

      Nonimus
      The universe is 14 billion years and the earth 4.5 billion years old in the last 10% of its potential life sustaining form (500 million years before sun gets too hot). Professor Andrew Watson in April 2008 article has a viable estimate of chances of intelligent life emerging at less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years. The rapid diversification during the Cambrian began a little more than 500 million years ago placing us in about the middle of our life cycle. All the talk is that anything is possible given billions of years appears wishful thinking as we are talking less than a billion from start to finish.
      I do not see how Doc could argue the probability of God being greater or less than the probability of our existence regardless of what number you choose given what we know.

      May 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @fred,
      First, I think you misunderstand the figures. I'm not certain where you get "a billion from start to finish," since, I think, there is evidence of life as far back as 3.8 billion years ago (http://ncse.com/evolution/science/earliest-evidence-life), if not further, and we may have as much as 1 billion years yet to go, or "a luminosity of 1.1 Lsun... in 1.1 Gyr." (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/173407) So, it seems like we're talking about a 4.3(3.8+.5) to 6.0(4.9+1.1) billion year window for the Earth.

      Second, even Watson, the scientist you mentioned, is making, what he admits to be, "a reasonable first approximation for what is, after all, a very idealized sort of model, deliberately simplified enough that the math can be solved analytically."
      (as quoted by http://www.space.com/5223-intelligence-rare-cosmic-commodity.html)

      Third, I would have to agree with the following from the same article, "Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Insti.tute, had this comment on Watson's work: 'We have, of course, only one example of intelligent life (indeed, of life of any type). That means we cannot possibly estimate from this single instance what is the probability of life on other worlds unless we are completely confident we understand all the relevant evolutionary processes.'"

      Again, "we cannot possibly estimate... the probability of life... unless... we understand all the relevant evolutionary processes." This is the basic problem with all 'probabilities of life' that theists/IDists/Creationists come up with, we don't know all the possibilities therefore we can't calculate the probabilities of it happening .

      May 2, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • fred

      Nonimus
      Using the same argument then we should conclude we do not know enough about what we do not know (i.e. existence of God) that we can guess at the probability God exists or does not exist. Can we even speculate as to that probability approaching 0 or 100%?
      Salmon are somehow programmed to swim up the same stream. A very high percentage do but, not all for various reasons. Humans are somehow programmed to insert “God” for what is unknown and worship that god since mans recorded history. In the case of Salmon we assume it is for their survival for a purpose they do not know. In Humans we also cannot discount it is for their survival for a purpose they do not know. It is logical to assume worship of god was or is a valuable trait for a purpose we do not know. Evolutionists claim future evolution of man will be directed by intelligent design having cracked the code for a better enhanced version of human. We discount intelligent design by the unknown yet believe intelligent design is our hope for survival. This reminds me of that serpent in the Garden that said “you will be like God”. Now, what’s the probability of that coming true?

      May 2, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @fred,
      "Can we even speculate as to that probability [of God existing] approaching 0 or 100%?"
      No, I don't think we can, not with any certainty. I will say, and I've heard others say, I think God most likely does not exist, based on experience and my understanding of what has happened in the past, but I don't claim to know for certain.

      The salmon/human comparison could possibly be explained by the tendency of humans to seek patterns, whether they exist or not, and to assign agency to thing that are not independent agents. Suppersti.tions are an execellent example of pattern seeking that doesn't reflect reality. It is speculated that assigning agency to normal/natural phemomena may be a survival trait in that it would be safer to assume that the bushes are moving becuase there is a predator behind them rather than not. This trait may have overetended it's usefulness by allowing humans to see the supernatural in the natural, like lightening, storms, volcanoes, tides, earthquakes, etc. So rather than being "programmed" for God, we may have evolved certain behaviors or traits that led us to inaccurate conlusions.

      That is speculation, of course, but what I'm saying is that I don't think it is necessary believe that God exists simply because humans appear to have been "programmed" to believe, there may very well be a rational explanation for it.

      I'm not saying that God doesn't exist. I'm just saying I shouldn't have to live as if He does. We can have a society that allows for both, but that requires boundries. Who was it that said, "good fences make good neighbors?" Well, in my mind, the "wall of separation between Church & State" is a good fence. And, perhaps another fence would be a "wall of separation between Church & science."

      May 2, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
  17. vernonica davidson

    And this guy is REALLY snarky. I would have walked out too.

    May 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • momoya

      Not nearly as snarky as you've been here recently.. Why do you refuse to answer my questions?

      Let's think about what Sa.v.age actually said:

      1. Christians don't follow the bible verses that promote sla.very or k.i.lling your children if they disobey etc
      2. Because christians don't follow the bible on those verses, perhaps they should not follow the g.a.y bashing ones a few lines down.
      3. He described their BEHAVIOR and later apologized for that remark.

      What was so wrong with those three things?.

      May 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Khalil

      Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: ________________________________________I would like to thank you for the exlcelent service you provided. You are truly dedicated to serving and satisfying the customer. My wife was extremely happy with the results. We look forward to utilizing your professional service again in the very near future. Your professionalism and excellence in service is what makes you and your company stand out above others. Thank you once again!_________________I highly recommend Western Exec. They are dedicated to serving and satisfying the customer on all levels with their professional and exlcelent quality of service.

      June 27, 2012 at 1:04 am |
  18. vernonica davidson

    What the radical gay community wants is for the rest of us to condone their behavior.

    And we won't. Of course no one should be bullied. But what the radicals want has nothing to do with bullying because they will call disagreeing with them bullying just like Obama's supporters call anyone a racist who disagrees with him.

    May 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • jimtanker

      They probably care about as much for you as you do for them. They dont care if you condone them or not. What they probably want is to be treated EQUALLY as a human being. With the same rights.

      He in no way attacked Christians or the bible. If you consider someone who quotes evil things out of the bible then maybe you should consider the source in stead.

      May 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Being born gay is an orientation, not a behavior. This isn't the first time that I have called you on this. Is there a specific reason you are unable/unwilling to understand this?

      May 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • jimtanker

      Of course there is a reason for her inability to understand it. It's called religious bigotry.

      May 1, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • GodPot

      What the radical pork community wants is for the rest of us to condone their behavior. Don't go shoving Bacon down our throats, and there is no way my child will be in this school production of the Three Little Pig's with their biased bacon agenda!! I don't serve it at home so the school shouldn't serve it either!!

      May 1, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

      Most kids who are overweight are that way because they eat too much. Does that mean it is okay for other kids to make fun of them? It doesn't mean you are condoning their eating habits. Try to show respect and treat everybody equally.

      May 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      If you want to see how much of a hateful bigot you are, try replacing 'gay' with 'interracial couples'

      May 1, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • jk105

      Don't flatter yourself into thinking I want you to "condone" me. I want equality. How you feel about me is your own business–keep it that way.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • brain therapist

      exactly.

      May 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
  19. Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

    Christianity has a sure-fire cure for gayness. Just get on your knees, take a swig of wine, and accept the body of man into your mouth. – Stephen Colbert

    May 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
  20. Jacques Strappe, World Famous French Ball Juggler

    Could God cook a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

    May 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.